wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Hospital licensing board NABH says private actors will dilute critical processes under NDHM

NABH asked for omissions under the proposed Health Facility Registry, raising key points on selection and verification processes.

“[The] last point in the eligibility criteria stating ‘Any private or autonomous body involved in granting empanelment or certifications to health facilities’ should be omitted. Involving private bodies will dilute the entire verification process,” the National Accreditation Board for Hospital and Healthcare Providers told the National Health Authority (NHA) in its comments on the proposed Health Facility Registry (HFR).

The Health Facility Registry, a part of the government’s multi-layered National Digital Health Mission (NDHM), would be a database of all health facilities – labs, hospitals, clinics, etc – in the country after verification by health facility verifiers.

On September 2, the NHA made public the submissions by various health service providers and digital health stakeholders on the proposed HFR and other components of the NDHM. This included comments by NABH, an accreditation and empanelment body for hospitals and healthcare providers under multiple government health schemes. The NABH, in its submission, raised important points on how health facilities should be included in the HFR, including verification processes, eligibility, and more.

Read: Summary: Health Facility Registry, a core building block of the NDHM

What the NABH said about HFR

On integration of other databases with HFR

NHA: The health authority invited suggestions on how should a Health Facility Registry organisation/programme be able to interact with the HFR. HFR Organisation/ Programme Entities are entities engaged in activities like granting licenses and certification to health facilities, implementing the government health and insurance programmes and schemes, empanelling hospitals as insurance companies, etc.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

NABH suggested:

  • NABH along with other constituent boards of the Quality Council of India (QCI) should be considered for the role of a Health Facility Organisation. QCI is a government body which ensures the adoption of certain quality standards across various bodies and sectors like healthcare.
  • Its own database of 12,000 healthcare facilities be integrated with the HFR.

On criteria for selecting Health Facility Registry organisations

NHA: Suggestions were invited on the proposed criteria and scope of function of an HFR Organisation/Programme.

NABH suggested that private organisations should not be allowed to become HFRO’s as it would dilute the verification process. It suggested that organisations with ‘repute’ should be given the responsibility instead.

On terminology for ‘Health Facility Verifier’

NHA: Suggestions were invited on the terminology, nomenclature of the term ‘Health Facility Verifier’ (HFV). According to the NHA, ‘Health Facility Verifier’ refers to an independent, third-party legal entity enrolled in NDHM that is responsible for the verification of data in the HFR.

NABH suggested that the term be changed to ‘Health Facility Verifying Organisation’, as the current term gives the idea that the Health Facility Verifier is a single person.

On criteria for Health Facility Verifier selection

NHA: Suggestions were invited on the two proposed methods to select a health facility verifier. The two methods were either a Standing Committee or the National Health Authority itself would oversee the shortlisting, verification, and training of the potential verifiers.

NABH suggested:

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
  • The first method to selecting a Health Facility Verifier be taken, involving a standing committee.
  • The NABH and ‘sister boards’ be selected as Health Facility Verifiers.

On data fields for registration of health facilities

NHA: Comments were invited on the thoroughness of data fields listed by the HFR consultation paper for registering health facilities along with suggestions for what more could be added.

NABH suggested that accreditation bodies listed by health facilities should have International Society for Quality in Health Care (ISQua) accreditation for their organisation, and not just for their standards. ISQua is a not-for-profit entity that provides accreditation to healthcare organisations worldwide, based on its standards.

Comments and consultations so far

At an Open House held for consultation on three NDHM components – Unified Health Interface, Healthcare Professionals  Registry, and Health Facility Registry- on September 6, the NHA revealed that it had received 329 comments so far.

Out of this:

  • 48% were on the Healthcare Professionals Registry
  • 33.4% were on the Unified Health Interface
  • 18.5% were on the Health Facility Registry

Further by area of concern

  • 23.4% were on implementation – as in how the concepts would be implemented across the country, in areas where other infrastrucure is weak.
  • 25.3% were on policy – such as data sharing mechanisms, data regulations, etc.
  • 51.1% were on product – such as the design principles as well as technological aspects of the building blocks

During the Open House, the NHA also noted that this marked the fourth stage of its consultative process on different parts of the NDHM. Previously it had conducted consultations on:

Also Read (feedbacks submitted by other stakeholders):

Have something to add? Post your comment and gift someone a MediaNama subscription.

Written By

I cover health technology for MediaNama, among other things. Reach me at anushka@medianama.com

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Looking at the definition of health data, it is difficult to verify whether health IDs are covered by the Bill.


The accession to the Convention brings many advantages, but it could complicate the Brazilian stance at the BRICS and UN levels.


In light of the state's emerging digital healthcare apparatus, how does Clause 12 alter the consent and purpose limitation model?


The collective implication of leaving out ‘proportionality’ from Clause 12 is to provide very wide discretionary powers to the state.


The latest draft is also problematic for companies or service providers that have nothing to with children's data.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ